I’m talking about sexual assault and the coverage of rape in the media. Both the description of rape and the victim-blaming in the reporting are likely to be anger-inducing and/or triggering for some readers.

Shadesong pointed out two very different news stories about CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was separated from her crew and repeatedly raped during the protests in Egypt. The difference between the CBS News report and the LA Weekly report is obvious from the images chosen for each story.

For CBS, Logan was one of their own. Not a sexual object but a human being, a colleague. They present the facts in a concise article. Logan was reporting on the celebration in Tahrir Square. She was separated from her crew. She was raped and beaten before being rescued by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. The story concludes with, “There will be no further comment from CBS News and correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.”

Contrast this with Simone Wilson’s “report” in LA Weekly. “South African TV journalist Lara Logan, known for her shocking good looks and ballsy knack for pushing her way to the heart of the action, was brutally and repeatedly raped…”

Wilson emphasises Logan’s appearance, calling her “the gutsy stunner” or referring to “her Hollywood good looks,” while at the same time sensationalizing/sexualizing the rape with phrasing like, “…Egyptian protesters apparently consummated their newfound independence by sexually assaulting the blonde reporter.” (Emphasis added.)

Of course, it was really Logan’s fault, because she should have known better, right? Wilson brings up an Esquire interview in which Logan was called “insane” for wanting to return to Egypt. (Um … she’s a reporter. This is her job. Would a male reporter be similarly criticized for choosing to report in Egypt?)

No report of rape would be complete without an attack on the victim’s sex life. The longest quote in Wilson’s article is reserved, not for anything to do with rape, but for an excerpt from a New York Post article from 2008 about Logan’s sexual history in which she’s called a “sultry” “home-wrecker,” a lurid piece which sounds more like the setup for an erotic romance than actual reporting.

The pathetic thing is how normal this is. This is how rapes are reported in this country. Sensationalized and sexualized, deliberately playing into readers’ rape fantasies. (Why else would Wilson include the following quote from Mofo Politics: “OMG if I were her captors and there were no sanctions for doing so? I would totally rape her.”)

This is the story we tell, again and again — that rape is about sexually attractive women getting what they deserve, for being sluts or for being unavailable or for just being where women don’t belong. This is how we treat survivors of rape, blaming them and sexualizing/fetishizing what they’ve been through. This is how we encourage rapists, fantasizing and justifying the act of rape.

The next time someone asks what “rape culture” means, tell them to go read LA Weekly.

#

ETA: For those wondering if there’s anything they can do, Laura Anne Gilman writes:

I get what you’re saying, but even though I know you’re saying it ironically, the phrasing still makes me cringe. Probably because I’ve heard it said unironically so many times that it’s hard for me to separate it out.

It does appear that LA Weekly is getting a good deal of feedback on the piece. Wilson has already updated her article with a note at the end, and I’m seeing more criticism showing up elsewhere.

The reactions to what happened to that woman (who, by the way, totally kicks ass at her job) have been horrifying – not just on LA Weekly (a trashy rag to start out with) but in the blogosphere as well. It’s like everyone decided that it was Be As Sexist And Racist As You Want Day! and had themselves a little lady-hating and brown-people-hating party. (indeed, the whole white-lady-brown-men subtext has been particularly troubling.)

Thanks for posting this, Jim. The more sober voices we have in the mix, the better.

JannFeb 16, 2011 @ 10:33:44

The situation with female correspondents being attacked and raped is horrifying as written about in the following article:

Thank you for writing this and for educating people about rape culture.

It’s absolutely ridiculous how certain media outlets are portraying what happened and does nothing to stop victim blaming.

As a professional in the DV/SA sector, I just want to say thank you for what you have written again. Every little bit counts, it’s so awesome when people speak out against victim blaming and against rape culture.

Ugh, yes. Because attractive women deserve it, and it’s those brown people who are the real savages, and– Yeah. It gets really bad.

KenFeb 16, 2011 @ 12:06:55

Was the question of rape vs. sexual assault clarified somewhere? One news outlet says sexual assault, another rape. As a former sheriff’s officer, I know the terms are frequently interchangeable, but not are always the same in definition and action. Several things are considered sexual assault, with or without penetration — groping of breasts or sexual parts, forced removal of clothing – can be considered sexual assault, but not rape. Whatever the case and no matter the definition though, the final outcome was horrible, should have never happened, and much of the reporting dubious.

The legal definition changes from state to state. Saying something is or is not rape is meaningless without clarifying whose particular set of laws you’re working within.

I don’t believe either article went into the specific details of what was done, nor do I believe that’s necessary to the reporting.

KenFeb 16, 2011 @ 12:37:02

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that any explanation was necessary as to specifics, or even that it ultimately mattered. I was merely curious whether more information had come out, and if the term(s) used by both media outlets had been downplayed or overplayed by one or the other for whatever reason.

I’m not aware of any further details, and given the statement from Logan and her family, I don’t expect that to change.

KeriFeb 16, 2011 @ 13:33:49

Thanks for posting this, Jim. You’re always on top of these things.

I pointed out to various people during the “redefining rape” attempt of the GOP that it would be used to further blame women for getting raped. It would force women to have to prove they fought hard enough to stop it, and that the dress she wore did not justify the attack, and that just because she wasn’t a virgin it doesn’t mean she really wanted it after all.

At least there does seem to be negative feedback going to these people. Given the massive political attacks on women’s rights at the moment, that gives me a tiny amount of comfort. But yes, they will sensationalize any crime, particularly those involving sex, for the sake of controversy and eyeballs. It sounds like Logan has a strong support network; I hope so for her sake. It surprises me that LA Weekly, owned by the Village Voice Media company, would publish something like this.

ShawnFeb 16, 2011 @ 15:21:23

I notice in the update on the LA Weekly story the reporter says, essentially, Gosh, we know rape is awful & she did nothing to bring it on herself, and by the way, why are you bitching at us when all these OTHER stories reported just like we did, and really, we’re celebrating the fact that gorgeous women kick ass in traditionally male fields.

Talk about a schizophrenic and evasive way to avoid taking responsibility for sensationalistic reporting. “You misunderstand me!” “Everybody else is bad, why are you yelling at me?” “No really, you misunderstand me!”

There was also a half-hearted “free speech, much?” whine.

This was the first time I’ve ever read anything on LA Weekly.

It’s the last time, too. They have all the right in the world to free speech; I have all the right in the world to take my business elsewhere. The only sad thing is that they will get a huge spike in website clicks & hits out of this; one can only hope it will be followed by a massive nadir immediately following this.

In the meantime, I will keep Ms. Logan in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope that the firestorm of criticism will get lots of people to thinking about our societal attitudes about rape and its victims.

I think this is an excellent post. I had only seen the CBS news about the attack, via Twitter, and knew nothing about the other garbage. I referenced this in my own blog today – so thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I know it was a toss-off, but as a writer of erotic romance, I take a bit of exception to your comparison “more like the setup for an erotic romance.” I know you’re just pointing up that this isn’t reporting, but I hate to see any literary genre as somehow condoning rape. Erotic romance plays with consent issues, yes, but, as you point out so well here, sexual fantasy and real-world crime are two very different animals.

I’m not sure what you’re taking exception to, exactly. I used erotic romance when describing the way LA Weekly talked about Logan’s sexual history. I don’t think I said or implied anything about erotic romance condoning rape. The New York Post article being referenced was from 2008, and has nothing to do with rape. I think it’s a fair statement that the excerpt quoted by Wilson sounds like it could be the setup for an erotic romance.

I read your post, and I agree with you. I would love to have heard more about those involved in rescuing Logan, particularly the civilian women who stepped in to help her.

Hadn’t read it, but it came up a few times in the discussion over on LJ, and a few people quoted excerpts. Unfortunately, I had already used up my weekly quota of being pissed off at stupid people, so I probably won’t take a look until at least next week.